Christian Huitema: Write discussion paper on the integration of services and its impact on usage and models of usage.

NOTES:

1. last call on any minutes still pending

2. review actions and drafts in progress

Received a few comments on renumbering draft ID. Being modified, and then will be published as an informational RFC.

“IPv6 address ownership” is on IESG reading list; will come up for consideration for publication as a BCP soon.

“Escape clause” needs to have extra text inserted as suggested by lawyers and be sent to RFC editor by IESG.

3. brief report from IESG liaison

The IESG appears to agree with our suggestions re. MIME-type registration, but they have not come to closure yet.

IPv6 specification now moved to proposed, but there is not a lot of strong support. A number of people feel that the IETF consensus on IPv6 was not technically strong. Also, other parts of the stack need to be worked on, but doesn’t seem to be getting adequate attention. It was generally agreed that we should encourage the IESG to move IPv6 (and upper layer modifications to go with it) forward as quickly as possible.

4. progress report from Lixia’s addressing group

Little progress since Stockholm IETF. Group dynamics is getting messy and keeping progress from taking place. Many people seem to agree that aggregator-based addressing is the right way to start, but not all. It would be valuable for the group to document what they have learned; Lixia agreed to do this.

5. review Architectural Principles draft before publication as I-D

Brian has added some text to his original document to reflect points from Paul and Christian’s presentations at the Stockholm open IAB meeting.

Issues discussed:

“Designs based on large clouds of undifferentiated address spaces do not scale…” No one knows what it means, and it will be taken out.

“Names should be case independent.” URLs are currently case dependent because they contain UNIX file names, which is a problem. For this case, URNs are the answer. Suggested change: “Public names should be case independent.”

“In practice, this means that addresses must be the same at start and end of transmission.” Addresses should not be used as identifiers…

Also, it was felt that the fundamental architectural issue of IP as the common bearer service needs to be disentangled from the general principle of doing things in only one way.

6. identify any areas needing IETF attention that are not covered by existing IESG Areas

Operational issues are becoming increasingly important given the explosive growth of the Internet. (The transatlantic links are saturated… 67% loss. Pacific link 33% loss.) It is not clear that the IEPG and NANOG cover this area enough. In particular, deciding policy issues among providers is necessary, but antitrust law must be carefully followed. There was general agreement that this issue is not the business of the IETF, or even the IAB, but remains important none the less.

Although the IESG Area Directors are believed to have plans in mind for their areas, there are apparently no published and proactive plans. There was general agreement that this needs to be done; a longer discussion of planning and architectural vision will be on the agenda for the Dallas meeting.

7. TLDs – ISOC proposal

can we form a consensus as input to the Dallas BOF?

The ISOC President Larry Landweber recently circulated a private draft proposal on TLD management and requested IAB feedback. Most of the ISOC trustees appear positive to Larry’s proposal. A few expressed concern that the ISOC may not have the stature to pull it off, so perhaps the industry do it instead. There does not appear to be opposition to spending money for registration–the requirement is setting up a credible structure for doing so.

Does the IAB want the operational responsibilities that Larry has proposed, possibly at the expense of the architecture, planning, etc.? There was general agreement that this is critical to the future of the Internet, so we need to (perhaps reluctantly) step up to the task–it looks as the IAB is the only existing organization with credentials and competence to do it. If the task becomes too great, a dedicated sub-committee of the IAB might be needed.

Future Meetings

Second Tuesday of the month, 10:00 Eastern time.

These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available online http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.